Debunkers Respond To Dennis Cimino, A Few Comments Copy & Pasted Options

[mrmitosis]

Edit by Rob Balsamo - I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP.

I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do i intend to. People are free to make their own choices.

Please keep in mind the disclaimer in white text at the top of the forum when reviewing this thread and the article referenced.

Thank you.


Dennis Cimino posted an article on Veterans Today earlier this week discussing the Pentagon attack and the unresolved issues within the FDR data.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/13/91...k-is-a-fantasy/

Debunkers are already talking about it. I'd appreciate any responses to the comments below, to help me deal with a particularly loathsome GL on YouTube. (If not, I'm sure I can manage on my own...it'll just take a little bit longer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) ...)

If he knows what hes talking about, why does he insist the FDR recorder shows the plane flying just over the West Wing of the White House on its way to the Penty, when even the twoofies pilots admit it shows no such thing?

Why does Dennis the ignorant fux insist the plane was heading 180, made a 330 degree right hand turn, then impact at heading 070. I mean HONESTLY, you fuxing moron, before pretending someone is an expert. Before pretending somone knows what he is talkin gabout, dont you think its a good ideaq to find out if the idiot can do SIMPLE FUXING 3RD GRADE ARITHMETIC FIRST?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

I mean Jesus tittfuxing christ! Even the little drooler picture Dennis drew of the AA77 flight path doesnt even show a 270 degreee turn. Instantly noticeable to anyone not a complete idiot (like Goebbels is) Yet Dennis the Moron keeps insisting a less than 270 degreee turn was an exact 330 degree turn? LMGDAOOOO

Dennis the Moron debunks herself frequently. At one moment (supposedly disproving a claim that data can sit in a buffer for several seconds before being recorded) that the FAR requires the data to be accurately recorded at least once a second. Then dismisses the Radar Altimiter data that disproves the "380 above the light poles" lie due to a magic carpet that was following the plane around, remaining underneath the Radalt ant. making it read falsely low--AND then claiming the Radal data is (contrary to previous claims) ofte ntimes "in lag" by several seconds. Dennis the Moron cant even keep his story straight. No wonder anyone with the smallest SHRED of aviation and avionics knowledge long ago dismissed his bullshit.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Mar 19 2012, 03:20 PM

[onesliceshort]

From your link Jim.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth Corroboration

Indeed, the evidence that United Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville and that United Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower has been considerably strengthened by new discoveries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.  By means of meticulous research on electronic communications between those aircraft and air traffic controllers, they have been able to establish that United Flight 93 was in the air in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, IN, and Champaign, IL, at the time of the alleged Shanksville crash.  Since no aircraft can be in two places at one time, it is difficult to imagine more conclusive proof that the Shanksville crash of Flight 93 was another fabricated event

Even more surprisingly, however, Pilots has also determined that United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South Tower in New York City

How can a Boeing 767 possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed), enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as though, in this respect, the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a bit better than the fabrication of Flight 175 fakery.

“9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe”

The serious question that has to arise at this point, of course, is “Why?” Would it not have been far simpler just to fly a real plane into the North Tower and another into the South? Where the answer turns out to be, “No”. Pilots for 9/11 Truth discovered that it is extremely difficult to hit an edifice 208′ across at more than 500 mph. After 20 or more tried it repeatedly, only one was able to hit it once. In addition, a real plane could not enter all the way into the building before it would explode. But that was a requirement of the mission, since otherwise there would have been no pseudo-explanation for the subsequent “collapse” of the buildings due to fire. And equally important, the explosions that were planned for the subbasements to drain the towers’ sprinkler systems of water so they could not extinguish the relatively modest fires that would remain after the pre-positioned jet fuel was consumed in those spectacular fireballs. The plan was to explain them away as residual effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts–a flawed theory, but good enough for a gullible public

Subtle as a breezeblock. Interweaving Pilotsfor911Truth fact and evidence into NPT.
And you think that this "Hollywood op" would be "easier" than flying an aircraft into the towers? Nice disconnect from the possibility that the aircraft was modified to penetrate and explode.

Speculation, I know, but NPT has way too many loose ends.

[jfetzer]

Well, if no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that supports the part of NPT that asserts "No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon". Some of Pilots discoveries, such as that the plane seen in the South Tower video was traveling at an impossible speed for a standard 767 and that Flights 93 and 175 were in the air but far removed from their alleged "crash sites" obviously also support parts of NPT.

Here's a sample of my high regard for Pilots(in response to a criticism posted by one Trowbridge Ford about "Planes/No Planes":

Jim Fetzer
February 24, 2012 - 8:10 am(Edit)
Trowbridge, as usual, does not know what he is talking about. On the Pentagon, for example, see “What didn’t happen at the Pentagon”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/wh...t-pentagon.html On the “black box data”, see “Pandora’s Black Box”, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db5_1251546799, another in a series of brilliant studies by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This guy may be the world’s most gullible person, outstanding of its kind.

I am simply integrating evidence that Pilots has established into the broader matrix of evidence that supports no planes theory. That, of course, is perfectly appropriate. I have no desire to impose my views upon anyone, much less Pilots, but it does seem to me that if you and others were to ACTUALLY STUDY THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PRESENTED, you just might change your minds.

From your link Jim.









Subtle as a breezeblock. Interweaving Pilotsfor911Truth fact and evidence into NPT.
And you think that this "Hollywood op" would be "easier" than flying an aircraft into the towers? Nice disconnect from the possibility that the aircraft was modified to penetrate and explode.

Speculation, I know, but NPT has way too many loose ends.